By Evan Wolfson: Countering a right-wing claim to the "slippery slope" argument
Freedom to Marry
October 12, 2005
On an Illinois radio show I did last week — available on our podcast or at this link (.mp3) — one anti-gay caller characteristically avoided offering a reason why the government should continue excluding same-sex couples from marriage and, as usual, went to the "slippery slope" diversion of "polygamy." As new proof that the sky was falling, the caller said that the Netherlands, which has ended the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, has now also allowed a trio of man and two women to wed. Before yet another right-wing scare tactic gathers traction, please note that this claim — that the Netherlands registered a multi-partner "civil union" — is untrue.
Following the radio interview, we looked into the caller's claim and found an erroneous September 27 report in something called the Brussels Journal — www.brusselsjournal.com — misusing the term "civil union" and talking about something "registered by a notary." Once we checked this with a leading Dutch expert who follows legal developments in family law, we learned that the only legally relevant thing that happened was that three people, with the help of a notary, signed a private cohabitation contract — and did not enter into any kind of legal state-recognized union. Such personal agreements are not registered, and do not have legal implications for third parties. In both these respects, as well with regard to the state's imprimatur, a personal agreement or contract is different from both marriage and registered partnership. (And civil union, as such, is not a legal status in the Netherlands).
Again, this was a private arrangement among three people, not a marriage or partnership or union. According to our Dutch expert, there is no law in the Netherlands (nor in most other countries) that limits the number of parties who can among themselves make a personal agreement or cohabitation contract. Dutch law does not regulate cohabitation contracts as such. Some Dutch laws (for example in the fields of tax and social security), however, attach certain legal consequences to the de facto cohabitation of two people (whether or not these cohabitants have signed a cohabitation contract), but never to the de facto cohabitation of three or more people. With respect to de facto (i.e. unregistered) cohabitation there has not been any recent change in Dutch law.
Had the right-wing caller been interested in getting at the truth, rather than the familiar "slippery slope" diversionary talking-point, he could have followed a source in the original misleading article, pointing to a more accurate September 23 report in the "Reformatorisch Dagblad" (which I am told is a small national daily newspaper in the Netherlands, aimed particularly at pietistic Christians).
As ever, the opponents of equality will claim the sky is falling. Don't believe it. Same-sex couples seeking to marry are not saying "let's have no rules." They are saying, "let us have what you have — the freedom to marry the person we love with the same rules, same responsibilities, and same respect."
*Read an email written by a reader in response to this post and Evan Wolfson's reply to this personal email.
Why Marriage Matters America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry.
By Evan Wolfson
Read reviews! Purchase the book or receive a signed copy as a thank you for your donation!
Read families’ stories about how marriage discrimination affects everyday life. These stories communicate, in concrete ways, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage hurts families and helps no one.
Start in The Marriage Basics to get short answers to your big questions about the freedom to marry, and learn more about the protections and responsibilities of marriage, the historical background for this civil rights movement, why separate is not equal, and so much more.
